The recent demise of a private member’s bill extending scrutiny powers for local government is typical of the way party executives and their whips control Parliament and MPs, complains Nick Raynsford
While there has been huge media coverage of the reform to parliamentary expenses, the process of reforming parliamentary procedures which has also been under way in recent months has received much less attention.
Yet these reforms, promoted by the public administration select committee, chaired by Tony Wright MP, are crucial to restoring Parliament’s self-respect and effectiveness.
For most of the past 50 years or more, power has leached away from Parliament. In part this has been the consequence of the emergence of a 24/7 media dominated society. The television studio has usurped the chamber of the House of Commons as the main cockpit of national political debate. But loss of parliamentary power has also reflected a process of ever-greater control by the executive and by the party whips over the parliamentary process and timetable. This has severely restricted the ability of backbench MPs to hold the Government to account and to take legislative initiatives.
The key reforms proposed by the public administration select committee are designed to reverse this process by removing the power of party whips to appoint chairs and members of select committees and to allow backbench MPs greater say over the allocation of the parliamentary timetable. Both reforms were agreed earlier this month and will take effect in the next Parliament.
The need for the change was graphically highlighted by the unhappy fate of two private member’s bills in the last few weeks of this Parliament. Both bills enjoyed widespread support inside and outside Parliament. The Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Bill, promoted by Sally Keeble, MP for Northampton North, addressed important international issues. The Local Authorities (Overview and Scrutiny) Bill would have extended councils’ scrutiny powers over outside bodies delivering local public services. This bill had been introduced by David Chaytor, MP for Bury North, but I had taken over responsibility for seeing the bill through its committee and report stages in the House of Commons.
Because of the very limited amount of parliamentary time available for backbench business, both bills had to complete their passage through the House of Commons by Friday 12th March to have any chance of reaching the statute book before the general election. Both were blocked by an arcane procedure which allows a single MP to ‘object’ when it is proposed that the bill is given its third reading. Because of the lack of alternative time available for backbench bills, this effectively kills the bill by denying it a third reading at the only opportunity available.
The irony is that both bills enjoyed widespread cross-party support, and no frontbench spokesperson from any party spoke against them. However, while not prepared to openly oppose the Local Authorities (Overview and Scrutiny) Bill, Justine Greening, MP for Putney and a Conservative spokesperson on local government issues, had tabled a series of hostile amendments and briefed a backbench Tory MP (Christopher Chope, MP for Christchurch) to speak to the amendments.
All of these amendments were dealt with in the course of the report stage debates. None of them were approved, but two other amendments developed as part of a consensual response to issues raised in committee were incorporated in the bill.
The Bill had thus benefited from scrutiny and amendment and retained its non-partisan character. It would have made a modest but significant improvement to the powers available to local authority overview and scrutiny committees, helping them exercise more effective oversight over a number of other bodies – for example, utilities, transport operators, and private and voluntary organisations delivering public services, whose work impacts on their area. As MPs from all parties acknowledged during the bill’s committee stage, this would also have helped to support and advance the Total Place agenda.
Ironically those responsible for killing this bill are not subject to scrutiny. The arcane procedure allows the MP who ‘objects’ to the bill to remain anonymous, at least in the official Hansard record of Parliamentary proceedings. What we do however know is that a Conservative frontbench spokesperson was clearly implicated in the process which led to the bill being blocked, despite having expressed support for it at its second reading.
This does little to enhance the reputation of Parliament, let alone the trustworthiness of the Conservative party on local government issues.
Nick Raynsford is a former local government minister
